Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"

[FLOTSOM]

ok everybody who wants to be a smart man???? then answer this simple question..

where in the constitution does it state that any person has the RIGHT TO PRIVACY??????? which is part of the basis of the original argument here.

your arguments are additionally flawed because they are based upon the rights you are considered to have at/in your home, mine is based upon you  voluntarily entering into a place that is controlled, regulated and protected by the government. a place that by entering you are conceding to being searched at any time with or without cause. do any of you bother to read the signs at the front doors. try entering a military base and telling the guard at the gate that you have a "right to privacy" and no he cannot search your car, try it at a court house or any other federal building. these places have the same signs.

when you enter the property, any property under the direct control of the government normally, but not always, you will find the place has posted upon or near the entrance in conspicuous view, a sign that tells you this fact. so if you enter of your own free will you have given your consent by your actions period. thus you have waved your right(s). these signs are further posted again and again at each step in the process of moving through the airport. so tell me, at which point of reading these signs over and over again do you start to fail to understand what they say? or do you start to believe they don't mean you?

any right may be voluntarily waved, like for instance the right not to be forced to incriminate yourself, upon your acquiescence by act or omission, providing it may be reasonably believed that you were made aware of such forfeiture of said right(s). signs posted in a conspicuous manner in the eyes of the courts constitutes such reasonable belief that you have this required knowledge.

see i live in the real world and i actually read what is there, so unlike most people i get alot of what is based upon reality, not what others think they get because its what they said on their favorite cop show on t.v..

if you wanna quote chapter and verse of articles and documents you obviously know little about then you better bring it with more than quotes that do not support your arguments.

[Penguin]

ok everybody who wants to be a smart man???? then answer this simple question..

where in the constitution does it state that any person has the RIGHT TO PRIVACY??????? which is part of the basis of the original argument here.

your arguments are additionally flawed because they are based upon the rights you are considered to have at/in your home, mine is based upon you  voluntarily entering into a place that is controlled, regulated and protected by the government. a place that by entering you are conceding to being searched at any time with or without cause. do any of you bother to read the signs at the front doors. try entering a military base and telling the guard at the gate that you have a "right to privacy" and no he cannot search your car, try it at a court house or any other federal building. these places have the same signs.

when you enter the property, any property under the direct control of the government normally, but not always, you will find the place has posted upon or near the entrance in conspicuous view, a sign that tells you this fact. so if you enter of your own free will you have given your consent by your actions period. thus you have waved your right(s). these signs are further posted again and again at each step in the process of moving through the airport. so tell me, at which point of reading these signs over and over again do you start to fail to understand what they say? or do you start to believe they don't mean you?

any right may be voluntarily waved, like for instance the right not to be forced to incriminate yourself, upon your acquiescence by act or omission, providing it may be reasonably believed that you were made aware of such forfeiture of said right(s). signs posted in a conspicuous manner in the eyes of the courts constitutes such reasonable belief that you have this required knowledge.

see i live in the real world and i actually read what is there, so unlike most people i get alot of what is based upon reality, not what others think they get because its what they said on their favorite cop show on t.v..

if you wanna quote chapter and verse of articles and documents you obviously know little about then you better bring it with more than quotes that do not support your arguments.

I can't really make an argument now, but this is one of the better put together ones I've seen for years.  Well held, FLOTSOM, well held.

 
-Penguin

[MORAY37]

The minimum requirements to now feel up or view naked, you, your wife and your kids.

Educational Background
FAR 108.31(a)(1) requires that screeners possess a high school diploma, a General Equivalency Diploma, or a combination of education and experience which the certificate holder has determined to have equipped the person to perform the duties of the position. This implies that the airline can decide that a screener does not have to successfully complete high school.

Criminal Background Checks
FAR 108.33(c)(5) does not require criminal records checks for every screener applicant, only for those applicants who have specific deficiencies in their employment history, if there are other deficiencies in the application, or if the air carrier finds out that the applicant may have been convicted of certain kinds of crimes. The required criminal records check is with the FBI, but the regulations do not say anything about records checks from other countries.

Criminal History
Surprisingly, a conviction for a crime, even a violent felony, does not disqualify someone from working as a screener. FAR 108.33(2) states that a criminal records check must not disclose that the applicant had been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity, in any jurisdiction, during the previous 10 years of a number of crimes such as aircraft piracy, interference with a flight crew or cabin crew member, assault with intent to murder, rape or aggravated sexual abuse, or armed robbery. This list of crimes include sedition, treason, extortion, or distribution of a controlled substance. This regulation implies that so long as the conviction were at least 10 years old, almost any convicted criminal could become a security screener.

[Vulcan]

LOL pedo's will be lining up for the job 

[Penguin]

That sucks some major balls...

-Penguin

[FLOTSOM]

The minimum requirements to now feel up or view naked, you, your wife and your kids.

Educational Background
FAR 108.31(a)(1) requires that screeners possess a high school diploma, a General Equivalency Diploma, or a combination of education and experience which the certificate holder has determined to have equipped the person to perform the duties of the position. This implies that the airline can decide that a screener does not have to successfully complete high school.

Criminal Background Checks
FAR 108.33(c)(5) does not require criminal records checks for every screener applicant, only for those applicants who have specific deficiencies in their employment history, if there are other deficiencies in the application, or if the air carrier finds out that the applicant may have been convicted of certain kinds of crimes. The required criminal records check is with the FBI, but the regulations do not say anything about records checks from other countries.

Criminal History
Surprisingly, a conviction for a crime, even a violent felony, does not disqualify someone from working as a screener. FAR 108.33(2) states that a criminal records check must not disclose that the applicant had been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity, in any jurisdiction, during the previous 10 years of a number of crimes such as aircraft piracy, interference with a flight crew or cabin crew member, assault with intent to murder, rape or aggravated sexual abuse, or armed robbery. This list of crimes include sedition, treason, extortion, or distribution of a controlled substance. This regulation implies that so long as the conviction were at least 10 years old, almost any convicted criminal could become a security screener.

tell me are the prior criminal record requirements (with the exception of specif schooling required to perform said job) any more stringent to be a doctor? how about a professional photographer? how about a cop? a marine? or any other military branch of service? how about any of your local lawyers politicians sherif ect ect ect. in most cases you will find they are not.

"
Here are the requirements for running for President:

"The United States Constitution provides that a candidate for the presidency must be a "natural-born" United States citizen. The candidate must also be at least 35 years old and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. No law or court decision has yet defined the exact meaning of natural-born. Authorities assume the term applies to citizens born in the United States and its territories. But they are not sure if it also includes children born to United States citizens in other countries. How Nominated: By a national political party convention" "

those are the only requirements that you must meet to become president of the US. nowhere does it stipulate that a person must be free of a criminal history. in the end the voters will decide, look at Bush. so your criminal history argument really doesnt hold up when it comes to job requirements does it?

now before you say well he wont be looking at the monitors or he wont be padding me down ect ect, keep in mind the power over you privacy he has.

because of your additional ignorant and derogatory attitude about school lets run with level of education. try this for facts.........

"The Constitution does not require the President to be a college graduate, or even a high school or kindergarten graduate. Nine American presidents never went to college, including such great presidents as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, (although Lincoln was accepted to the bar and practiced law, he was largely self-taught) and even the 20th century president who won the war against Japan, Harry S. Truman. The others are Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore and Grover Cleveland. In fact, the 17th president of the United States, Andrew Johnson, never went to school at all. His wife taught him to read and write."

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm so your argument about educational levels really doesnt hold up very well either does it?

[quig]

So, FLOTSOM, you're arguing for this knowing that things like misconduct can and will happen, that kids 5-15 +/- will be nude on someone's monitor and that there is also a chance of them being put through physical searches? Not to mention peoples wives and girlfriends?

You can't really be serious.

And the last time I checked the only people the president gets to see naked are the interns.

[FLOTSOM]

So, FLOTSOM, you're arguing for this knowing that things like misconduct can and will happen, that kids 5-15 +/- will be nude on someone's monitor and that there is also a chance of them being put through physical searches? Not to mention peoples wives and girlfriends?

You can't really be serious.

And the last time I checked the only people the president gets to see naked are the interns.

hahahahaha cute 

my argument is three fold;

1 it is not a violation of any of your rights for them to do this, provided they show due dilligence in perfoming this in a professional manner.

2 to assume that because the job does not require college that must mean that the people doing it are of lowly stature is absurd. funny how many doctors after 6 years or more of schooling have been charged criminally and or been sued because of impropriety of one form or another. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35528101/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ just one example.

if the people are forced to act professional, by setting the example of stiff penalties for those who fail to do so, then the chances of being less than professional decrease. you are forgetting that all commercial airports fall under the auspices of the federal government, they require less proof and hand out much bigger sentences when one of their own step out of the lines. this will prove especially true when it involves children, nudity, photography of any kind, and a machine that is already so controversial

3 the safety of the many out weights the modesty of the few. (remember this is under the consideration that it is performed in a professional manner)

do i like it that this has become required? no. but as i said earlier, blame the scumbags that hide bombs in their underwear not the government for trying to prevent them from killing anyone.

[Serenity]

tell me are the prior criminal record requirements (with the exception of specif schooling required to perform said job) any more stringent to be a doctor? how about a professional photographer? how about a cop? a marine? or any other military branch of service?

Oh dear GOD yes. What did I go through to get in?

FBI background check.
Graduate high-school.
Submit personal references.
Have every inch of my body checked in a physical, to include sonograms, MRIs, and CT scans.
Submit written testimony of any discrepancy in my personal history to include any failed classes in highschool, and police involvement, etc.

You think you can walk into the military without graduating highschool and without a criminal background check? I couldn't even get an apartment without a background check!

[FLOTSOM]

Oh dear GOD yes. What did I go through to get in?

FBI background check.
Graduate high-school.
Submit personal references.
Have every inch of my body checked in a physical, to include sonograms, MRIs, and CT scans.
Submit written testimony of any discrepancy in my personal history to include any failed classes in highschool, and police involvement, etc.

You think you can walk into the military without graduating highschool and without a criminal background check? I couldn't even get an apartment without a background check!

well thats funny cause i have 2 friends with criminal records that are in the military. what was your MOS? im not saying the dont check, but its what will pass that matters.

[quig]

@FLOTSOM -

Let's see. The 4th says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No matter where your persons is, this still applies. So 1 is out.

And for 2 you are saying that with stiff punishments in place people won't break the law anyhow? Look at the death penalty. Just doesn't work that way. And no matter what punishment someone gets for abusing this, it will be too late and the damage done, especially for children.

Lastly, this isn't about modesty. There is a limit to how far this kind of thing should go, and this is past that limit. The safety of the many should come in some other form. This won't work anyhow as others have said.

[Serenity]

well thats funny cause i have 2 friends with criminal records that are in the military. what was your MOS? im not saying the dont check, but its what will pass that matters.

Right now, I'm training to be an officer and going for aviation.

It IS possible to get in with a criminal record. The difference is, there are certain criminal charges that, well, the military deems are acceptable. But they are KNOWN by the military, and taken into account when assigning an MOS. The key here is that TSA doesn't even check necessarily.

[FLOTSOM]

Right now, I'm training to be an officer and going for aviation.

It IS possible to get in with a criminal record. The difference is, there are certain criminal charges that, well, the military deems are acceptable. But they are KNOWN by the military, and taken into account when assigning an MOS. The key here is that TSA doesn't even check necessarily.

you are an officer and a pilot, first  second those types of jobs imply much more responsibility than the average grunt who humps mud.

i could be wrong in this and if someone knows for certain feel free to correct me, but doesnt the fbi do the hiring or screening for the tsa?

[MORAY37]

tell me are the prior criminal record requirements (with the exception of specif schooling required to perform said job) any more stringent to be a doctor? how about a professional photographer? how about a cop? a marine? or any other military branch of service? how about any of your local lawyers politicians sherif ect ect ect. in most cases you will find they are not.

"
Here are the requirements for running for President:

"The United States Constitution provides that a candidate for the presidency must be a "natural-born" United States citizen. The candidate must also be at least 35 years old and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. No law or court decision has yet defined the exact meaning of natural-born. Authorities assume the term applies to citizens born in the United States and its territories. But they are not sure if it also includes children born to United States citizens in other countries. How Nominated: By a national political party convention" "

those are the only requirements that you must meet to become president of the US. nowhere does it stipulate that a person must be free of a criminal history. in the end the voters will decide, look at Bush. so your criminal history argument really doesnt hold up when it comes to job requirements does it?

now before you say well he wont be looking at the monitors or he wont be padding me down ect ect, keep in mind the power over you privacy he has.

because of your additional ignorant and derogatory attitude about school lets run with level of education. try this for facts.........

"The Constitution does not require the President to be a college graduate, or even a high school or kindergarten graduate. Nine American presidents never went to college, including such great presidents as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, (although Lincoln was accepted to the bar and practiced law, he was largely self-taught) and even the 20th century president who won the war against Japan, Harry S. Truman. The others are Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore and Grover Cleveland. In fact, the 17th president of the United States, Andrew Johnson, never went to school at all. His wife taught him to read and write."

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm so your argument about educational levels really doesnt hold up very well either does it?

Sir, you can't get an apartment without a background check.  But you can feel up your fellow american citizens in clear violation of stated 4th amendment rights without one.  

It is clear you cannot have a discussion without personally insulting the the other participant.  

[warhed]

you are an officer and a pilot, first  second those types of jobs imply much more responsibility than the average grunt who humps mud.

i could be wrong in this and if someone knows for certain feel free to correct me, but doesnt the fbi do the hiring or screening for the tsa?

If it's anything like the process I'm going through for the Border Patrol, there is a central human resources department in Minnesota, background checks and investigations are performed by investigators contracted by the government.

My background investigations at the nuclear power plant for my reactor clearance (mandatory by the Government), were performed by 3rd party investigators who got much of their information from the FBI.

Many issues with government jobs aren't having a perfectly clean record, it's being honest when filling out your background paperwork. 

They would much rather have an individual who owns up to his past, than one who tries to hide it.